Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientists Jubilant After Successful Helicopter Crash
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Elizabeth Barber reports in the Christian Science Monitor that when a CH-46E Sea Knight helicopter plummeted into the ground at more than 30 miles per hour, there was jubilation from the scientists on the ground at the culmination of some two years of preparation to test a helicopter's crashworthiness. 'We designed this test to simulate a severe but survivable crash under both civilian and military requirements,' says NASA lead test engineer Martin Annett. 'It was amazingly complicated with all the planning, dummies, cameras, instrumentation and collaborators, but it went off without any major hitches.' During the crash, high-speed cameras filming at 500 images per second tracked the black dots painted on the helicopter, allowing scientists to assess the exact deformation of each part of the craft, in a photographic technique called full field photogrammetry. Thirteen instrumented crash test dummies and two un-instrumented manikins stood, sat or reclined for a potentially rough ride. The goal of the drop was to test improved seat belts and seats, to collect crashworthiness data and to check out some new test methods but it was also to serve as a baseline for another scheduled test in 2014. 'It's extraordinarily useful information. I will use this information for the next 20 years,' says Lindley Bark, a crash safety engineer at Naval Air Systems Command on hand for the test. 'Even the passenger airplane seats in there were important to us because we fly large aircraft that have the same type of seating."'
but, i mean how many lawyers could you squeeze into one of those things anyway? Not enough to make a difference.
Airbus. Now those guys have the right idea.
fist post
Seatbelts?
NASA still lives in the past - oh well. Hint: airbags
I'm curious to know what a mannekin is, is it like a moccasin? or a mandolin? does it taste good with lemon pepper? can i expect it on my next inflight meal thanks to this research?
I also wonder if we had any mannequins onboard without electronic sensors...but sorry, back to the topic at hand. is there a special fork i should use when eating a mannekin or do i just crack the shell and eat it with my fingers?
Good people go to bed earlier.
They actually do shit with data.
In other news, NASA scientists announced confusion after attempting to crash a helicopter and failing despite repeated tries. The helicopter in question had, in various stages, had its stabilizers, fuel tank and even rotors removed. Despite all this, the helicopter remained aloft. "A failure," one scientist was quoted as saying. "We'll just have to shoot it down and try to crash one next next year after more planning." "A helicopter that cannot crash is a tremendous blow to science," another was heard arguing with another, "How are we supposed to obtain crash data with an infinitely levitating hunk of junk?"
Seems about time they start doing this ... others have been doing similar activities with cars and planes. Helicopters have always seemed like a good idea to me, but generally are outside the financial reach of most of us (I've only been on one 20 minute sightseeing tour in Hawaii and it was $200 or $10/minute/passenger - there were 5 passengers). I wonder how much of my fare was to cover insurance premiums? Perhaps with more data for the actuaries to work with, the flight costs could drop to the point we could see helo transportation rival busses / small planes.
NASA has been doing these tests for at least 35 years. The way they drop them hasn't changed much. Hell, even using the black dots isn't new for them. But all the media outlets carried this like it was something brand-new
Fuck crashing in a helo, the forces involved are rarely survivable
for humans.
But if the NASA boys got a few paychecks by dicking around
with this project, I guess that's not so bad, after all look at how
much the NSA wastes every week.
Wow! They probably remote flew a helicopter and then crashed it at a few miles per hour and it went up in a big ball of fire, but not before giving out some exciting new data taken by high-speed cameras placed....
*watches video*
It's a fuselage dropped from a crane not 30 feet from the ground. That was pretty anti-climatic...
They just dropped the fuselage from height.
... will probably blame it on pile-it error.
In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of these things imagines you welcoming your new, neural-network overlords.
Of course to be politically correct they should have had some womannequins as well. ;-)
This has to be one of the most hyped-up titles in recent time, no accident occured, no scientists shooting at flying machines either. Just a basic dummy crash test this time on a helicopter carcass.
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Drop testing with the same gantry they've used since the 60's and Apollo. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/fs-2007-08-138-larc.html
Now named a National Historic Landmark.
1. Spend 20 million crashing a bird in which few fly - check !!
2. Spend next 20 years analyzing crash - check !!
3. Create planes that crash at 30 MPH - working !!
4. Profit !!
Damn hippies and their expensive toys !!
Re: "The way they drop them hasn't changed much."
http://www.defence.gov.au/sea_king_boi/pdf/chapters/Chapter%2018.pdf
Section 8.31 seems to give a hint at what NASA is trying to help with.
(from http://www.defence.gov.au/sea_king_boi/chapters.htm)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or is NASA really going off topic?
NASA has been doing these tests for at least 35 years. The way they drop them hasn't changed much. Hell, even using the black dots isn't new for them. But all the media outlets carried this like it was something brand-new
Wel, it might have been quite new for the Christian Science Monitor.
It's not likely helicopter crashes could be studied based on Bible.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
"and then had them write a safe landing program in FORTRAN."
All's true that is mistrusted
I guess you've never heard of them before. I consider the CSM currently one of the most reliable and unbiased of US media sources out there.
As I understand it, the short version of Christian Science is that God made everybody perfect, including their intelligence. We're supposed to be able to research, and learn, and improve our ability to use the resources we have. There is no forbidden knowledge, and no praise for ignorance. Most science is pretty universally accepted (and reported in the CSM).
Medicine is a somewhat different matter. Depending on the branch, all illness is either God's punishment or his plan, and that's the idea that leads the fundamentalists to deny medical treatment and let their children die. It should be noted well that many (if not most) Christian Scientists accept modern medicine more, as a tool developed by the aforementioned God-given intelligence. Prayer and other spiritual practices heal the mind and spirit, while doctors can take care of the physical symptoms. Between the two, the body can heal and the mind can guide it for a full recovery.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Why is NASA involved? I though they put stuff in space?
You might be surprised...
Manikin? Is that what Anakin would have become if he didn't go to the dark side? Mannequin. get me a manager i demand a refund
I guess you've never heard of them before.
Indeed, I didn't.
I consider the CSM currently one of the most reliable and unbiased of US media sources out there.
For media news (social, political and the like), I can believe it.
Can you say the same for scientific type of news? (I'm indeed asking for opinion/references here, as opposed to raising the question to cast a doubt).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There is always boom tomorrow. Boom sooner or later. BOOM!
In other news, NASA scientists announced confusion after attempting to crash a helicopter and failing despite repeated tries.
You joke...but this is the sort of thing that never gets funding.
Adam savage tells a tale of how a guy called him after they did the firing bullets inside aircraft episode. He said they'd been trying to get funding to do that experiment for decades.
It also took discovery channel to crash a 'plane and see what happens. There's no way a government could do this...right? (somebody might lose their campaign funding if the results made Boeing look bad!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment
No sig today...
Can you say the same for scientific type of news?
Apparently, all it has in common is the name.
NASA has been doing these tests for at least 35 years. The way they drop them hasn't changed much. Hell, even using the black dots isn't new for them. But all the media outlets carried this like it was something brand-new
Hey, know what? NASA folks are way smarter than you. I mean, they know they have to make a big noise to be heard above the screaming Miley fans and Twerk Team videos. They're actually doing a pretty good job in social media, if you ask me. We've got Curiosity's Adorable Twitter account, Drawing a Penis on Mars, Getting cut by the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle's Parallel Parking., Here's a cute GIF of Zero-G hijinks on the ISS, Exploring some social issues of Working with Robonaut, and lots of other engaging and fun stuff. Search it up, this is awesomely fun stuff, even if (especially if) a bit corny.
Getting out there and getting the common folks interested in NASA is crucial to funding more missions. You think we would have gone to the moon in '69 if the whole thing was kept low-key? Hell no. IMHO, they didn't make a big enough deal about the Helicopter Crash. They should have had it televised on NASA TV, maybe invited the guys from those Slow Mo shows to run their own cams from a safe distance. It should have been on my Evening News. Look, the science is great, don't get me wrong, but you have to deal with the public on their terms... Terms like "Successful Helicopter Crash!"
I would have said, "CGI in movies is so last century. Here at NASA we crash helicopters without even needing the excuse of an action movie plot."
::Safety glasses descend to cover speaker's eyes::
::OSD rises from bottom of frame:: "Deal with it."
::Record Screech:: [Cut To actual scientists discussing setup for THIS crash.]
Greenscreen Helicopter crashes with cheap CGI explosion overlay behind them.
[Cut to montage of crashes and 1sec of dubstep]
Have scientist quickly run down the importance of the crash intermixed with the shots of the crash several times in different angles AND SPEEDS to keep the easily distracted from changing the channel, only THEN drone on a bit with the "boring" details of how the data will be used for decades, etc. for the nerds. Including links to other crash test videos.
Ask yourself. Who the hell is NASA supposed to be for? The Future, right? KIDS! What kid DIDN'T want to be an Astronaut back when we were still going to the moon? Pandering to crusty science minded folks is easy, it's time to interact with the common folk and get them interested in space, "Not because it's easy, but because it is Hard."
TL;DR: They're doing their damn job, fool.
NASA did it first in 1984.
This answers the question of, 'How many NASA scientists does it take to discover gravity?'
NASA has some really bright people working there these days. Err, do we call non-carbon lifeforms 'people'?
.... because it's their job to crash helicopters. That it resulted in good data is secondary. :-)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
If people don't die in helicopter crashes, how will musicians become famous?
Government hires Mythbusters.
we can go back to afghanistan?